Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 264 posts

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#231

Post by tptacek »

jacamat wrote: post #217
Perceptes wrote: post #210

Pug parent here. As many other comments have mentioned, brachycephalic dogs are only one kind that suffers largely as a result of selective breeding by humans. I have the (somewhat) unfortunate opinion that brachycephalic dogs are also by far the cutest. Nothing makes me happier than being with my pug. I think this particular article brings up two important things about dogs as pets, but fails to connect them properl…

Well, we invented dogs. So while it is a good morale argument that breeding co-dependency into a species and infantilizing an otherwise very self-sufficient predator is a bad thing, its probably not going to happen. At least not in our lifetime. Which brings us back to improving the standards for breeding that we have today. Some dogs, such as Dalmatians and Bulldogs, are genetic atrocities and should not be bred in…

I don't know why people buy dalmatians. My only experience with the breed was my childhood friend's dalmation, who was an asshole and bit me.

But I do know why people buy bulldogs. They're easygoing. They have high medical and upkeep maintenance costs, but very low day-to-day costs. They're suitable for families with small children or other pets. They're grateful for play time when it's available, but not harmed by prolonged inattention. They're not so big that you couldn't own one in an apartment.

If there's another, healthier breed with the same characteristics and no major health problems, I'll concede that people should buy that breed and not the bulldog. But I don't think that's the case.

Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument. If you need those attributes in a pet, your alternative to a compromised dog is no dog at all. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that bringing a genetically compromised dog into the world is an ethical positive, I can't find a way to it being ethically negative. It seems pretty neutral to me.

Obviously: to responsibly acquire one of these dogs, you need to be educated about their issues and committed to ensuring their comfort as best as can be done.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#232

Post by tptacek »

MarkMc wrote: post #228
tptacek wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you help me understand how an extant dog could have a desire to live so ethically powerful that it overrides suffering, while it being simultaneously the case that it is unethical to bring such a dog into existence? It seems to me that your (a) implies that a living dog suffering from these defects is generating some benefit from living. Isn't it: maximum benefit > some benefit > no benefit?

That's a good question. I suppose I'm arguing for ethical framework in which I'm not the sole judge of costs and benefits. I think the pug will suffer so much that its life is not worth living. But if the pug feels differently then to some degree I should respect that. I guess my view is shaped by my empathy for the dog. How would I feel in his situation? Similarly, if I end up in a hospital bed racked with pain, do…

Respectfully I want to creep up towards a presumptuous argument and say that you won't argue for euthanizing pugs because your gut tells you that whatever trouble pugs have due to their (many) health problems, a well-cared-for pug is generally a happy dog, and is not in fact living a life of overwhelming suffering.

We own a rescue mutt and a brachy purebred, and while I can't get inside the heads of either of my dogs, I would have absolutely no trouble telling you which of the two dogs is enjoying its life more. :)

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#233

Post by jacamat »

tptacek wrote: post #169

For those of you who believe it's unethical to own purebred dogs (or perhaps just brachycephalic purebred dogs) because their lives are defined by suffering due to genetic defects inherent in the breed, a question: Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?

I think it is unethical to breed brachycephalic dogs. It's merely inconvenient to own them. I don't blame dog owners for not knowing better.

I blame dog breeders for knowing better and breeding the dogs anyway.

Never say "ethically obligated" and "euthanasia" in the same sentence. That is asking the wrong question - but for the record the answer is no. Obviously. In addition to such a thing being impossible, there are easier ways forward. :-)

On suffering, the fact of the matter is that the dogs really have no idea that they're suffering. They just exist. They know nothing more than what they are exposed to, and what they perceive.

I feel that if we are obligated to do anything, it is simply to change how and for what purpose we breed animals. Deciding that the pug can still exist - with a longer nose - or that the Dalmatian can exist after they breed out their uric acid problem is attainable. It just takes work. And support, from pet owners and breed lovers, to guide people and to vote with their money.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#234

Post by jacamat »

tptacek wrote: post #231
jacamat wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we invented dogs. So while it is a good morale argument that breeding co-dependency into a species and infantilizing an otherwise very self-sufficient predator is a bad thing, its probably not going to happen. At least not in our lifetime. Which brings us back to improving the standards for breeding that we have today. Some dogs, such as Dalmatians and Bulldogs, are genetic atrocities and should not be bred in…

I don't know why people buy dalmatians. My only experience with the breed was my childhood friend's dalmation, who was an asshole and bit me. But I do know why people buy bulldogs. They're easygoing. They have high medical and upkeep maintenance costs, but very low day-to-day costs. They're suitable for families with small children or other pets. They're grateful for play time when it's available, but not harmed by p…

I looooooove Dalmatian's. They're so pretty and spotty and different looking.

On the other hand, I can't for the life of me figure out why someone in their right mind would buy a bulldog. lol. They slobber and fart and cost a small fortune just to keep alive for a reasonable period of time. Not to mention they literally cannot give birth without a C-section which, to me, is just unfathomable to put an animal through just because you like the way the animal looks. But to each their own, eh?

> "Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument"

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

If you want an apartment-sized dog that has like, no health issues, adopt a pit bull. Adopt a mutt. Adopt a labrador. If the dog tears up your shit, hire a trainer. If it needs exercise, exercise it more. Etc.

You can certainly choose a breed (or mix) that will have a significantly better quality of life without sacrificing anything personally. In which case, why would you instead choose a breed that is for-sure without-a-doubt no-way-around-it riddled with problems? The ethical negative seems obvious because there are plenty of other dogs that fit the bill without sacrificing their health from jump.

I will agree with you on education being an important factor in choosing a dog. But very few people have the in-depth education required to make that choice in the first place so, like I said, the responsibility ultimately falls on the BREEDER.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#236

Post by gerbilly »

Nursie wrote: post #116
divbit wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I am trying to point out is that it should be impossible to enjoy prolonged daily aerobic exercise under the constant respiratory distress the article is claiming for 'all such brachycephalic dogs.' Let me quote directly from the article: "The only time these dogs are not in some degree of respiratory distress is when you have them intubated under anaesthetic." What I am claiming, as a proof by contradiction of…

Firstly, are you qualified to know if your dog was not in "some" degree of respiratory distress? And again, your dog might have been ok. Hell, you might have got a classical pug with a longer snout and few issues. The problem is that there are vast numbers being bred and sold that do suffer from these problems, and no amount of exercise is going to help them. This is a solvable problem, if people stop selecting for d…

>Firstly, are you qualified to know if your dog was not in "some" degree of respiratory distress?

I had a little red dog when I was a kid. A mutt,a little larger than a pug, with short legs.

She would run alongside me while I rode my bike, say at 15km/h.

One time she ran till she collapsed. I felt really bad for not noticing that she was running too hard.

She had so much heart I think she would have run herself nearly to death if I let her.

After that I never rode fast when she was with me.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#237

Post by Raphmedia »

Nursie wrote: post #113
Raphmedia wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So get the ones that are fit like the one in the anecdote and breed them? This entire thread is such a non-issue.

That's not happening, breeders are breeding dogs that uave all sorts of problems and people are buying them in droves. That's the issue!

Is it really an issue?

As long as the animal is happy, I don't see the problem of a shorter lifespan.

You can simply (and sadly) have it put down in an humane way once it starts to get health issues. Plenty of pets don't make it past 8 years.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#238

Post by paulddraper »

feld wrote: post #84
weavie wrote: post #46

Not just Pugs. I had a German Shepherd. Beautiful dog, but everyone who I met who had had a German Shepherd in the past told me their dog had to be put down around 10 years of age due to their back legs failing. Our dog didn't even make it to 10. She died of heart failure at 7. According to the vet this is another common problem with the breed. I well never get a pure breed again.

There are acknowledged problems with pure breeds of all kinds, but not all pure breeds suffer from such extreme problems. It's possible to find a breeder with a strong bloodline free of many defects but it is not going to be cheap.

Virtually all pure bred dogs have have genetic issues.

A "pure" gene pool can only get smaller, never larger.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#239

Post by milesf »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #52
milesf wrote: post #39

The article is misleading. I own two pugs, and it's a breed that must be kept fit and healthy. They can't be allowed to run hard in hot weather, and if it is hot they need a lot of water. The folds in their skin need to be kept clean as well. This is a very old breed, and the dogs do have a decent lifespan if they're cared for properly. I don't know about Bulldogs, but I've never owned one because they're only expect…

Are you implying you know more about it than a veterinarian and an organization of veterinarians?

Do you believe that the article is 100% correct and speaks for all veterinarians on the planet?

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#240

Post by milesf »

criddell wrote: post #115
milesf wrote: post #39

The article is misleading. I own two pugs, and it's a breed that must be kept fit and healthy. They can't be allowed to run hard in hot weather, and if it is hot they need a lot of water. The folds in their skin need to be kept clean as well. This is a very old breed, and the dogs do have a decent lifespan if they're cared for properly. I don't know about Bulldogs, but I've never owned one because they're only expect…

One of the dogs I have right now is a pug and it is by far the best dog I have ever had. I wish I could reliably get pug personality and behavior in a mutt. For me, one of the benefits of getting a dog of a specific breed is that it's a known quantity.

Yep, you're correct that purebreds have a more predictable pattern of temperament and known health challenges (all dogs have problems. Some have more problems than others). Pugs are very smart, and can be difficult to train unless it's done at an early age. Unfortunately (okay, not really :) our two pugs are so stubborn, they often decide "no, I'm not going to listen to you".

I've owned pugs, pekingese, airdales, yorkshire terriers, a cocker spaniel, and a variety of mutts. Pugs are definitely my favourite. We have an informal pug owners club that meet every week at a local dog park. Most of the owners there are responsible owners, and love these little guys as much as I love mine.

It's cool here in British Columbia, so the hot weather problem with pugs isn't as big of an issue. We have been considering moving to the Caribbean, but it's very hot down there. We would either have to leave them behind, or they would have to be indoors most of the time. We love these guys too much to just up-and-leave them, and we don't want to keep them enclosed like prisoners, so we are likely going to wait until they pass away before we move.

Post reply on HN